John Paul Stevens

Name: Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court
Author: John Paul Stevens

Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John Paul Stevens. It explores elements such as vacation, employee and employer.

Quotes from Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court (John Paul Stevens)

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ Employees who are beneficiaries of such a trust face far different risks and have far greater need for the reporting and disclosure requirements that the federal law imposes than those whose vacation benefits come from the same fund from which they receive their paychecks. It is sufficient for this case that the Secretary's determination that a single employer's administration of a vacatio pay policy from its general assets does not possess the characteristics of a welfare benefit plan constitutes a reasonable construction of the statute. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ Most employers in the United States provide some type of vacation benefit to their employees. [15] ERISA coverage would put all these employers to the choice of complying with the statute's detailed requirements for reporting and disclosure or discontinuing the practice of compensating employees for unused vacation time. In addition, the extension of ERISA to claims for vacation benefits would vastly expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts, providing a federal forum for any employee with a vacation grievance. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that the case before us-and the Secretary's regulations on which we rely-concern payments by a single employer out of its general assets. An entirely different situation would be presented if a separate fund had been created by a group of employers to guarantee the payment of vacation benefits to laborers who regularly shift their jobs from one employer to another. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ Moreover, except for the fact that the payment has been deferred, such payments are as much a part of the employees' regular basic compensation as overtime pay or the payment of salary while the employee is absent on vacation. If in the end the employee elects to receive additional compensation instead of a paid vacation, he or she is receiving the same kind of premium pay that is available for holiday or weekend work. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ They provide that numerous "payroll practices," including the payment of vacation benefits "out of [an] employer's general assets" rather than from a trust fund, are not employee welfare benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA. [12] In addition, under the regulations, the term "employee welfare benefit plan" does not include the payment by an employer of premium rates for work performed during special periods such as holidays and weekends. [13] The Secretary has consistently adhered to this position even when the premium pay is accumulated and carried over to later years. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ Absent any indication that Congress intended such far-reaching consequences, we are reluctant to so significantly interfere with "the separate spheres of governmental authority preserved in our federalist system." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ The interpretation of § 3 (1) is governed by the familiar principles that " 'words grouped in a list should be given related meaning,' " Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 472 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S.Ct. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court

“ Board of Governors, FRS, 468 U.S. 207, 218, 104 S.Ct. 3003, 3009, 82 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984) ) , and that "in expounding a statute, we [are] not . . . guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy." Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 51, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1555, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) . In enacting ERISA, Congress' primary concern was with the mismanagement of funds accumulated to finance employee benefits and the failure to pay employees benefits from accumulated funds. ”

John Paul Stevens

Summary

Quotes from Massachusetts v. Morash — Opinion of the Court (John Paul Stevens)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature